But I'd be interested too, if it's easy to contact Andrew Probert, or if he even cares for things like this.

Click to expand...

Well, I sometimes pop my head in on projects like this,... a really spectacular build, by the way. It will be interesting to see what happens when 10-Forward comes into focus... one of Berman's bigger screw-ups.

SA-GEN-HAFT!
And Andrew Probert might still have a few things that could be of help. And unless I'm mistaken favors Ed Whitefire's approach.

Bob

Click to expand...

Of course I would appreciate Probert's, input on the matter. I've read a lot of interviews, ... Though their participation in this thread is rather doubtful.

little Upadate. I've worked a bit on the ceiling.

Because I came to the conlusion that I started to fake proportions...

Click to expand...

Okay,... first of all, yes, I'm a fan of Ed Whitefire's plans,... the original Enterprise-D Deck plans, but was not all that happy that he violated the Hull outline, as originally Designed. Still, his background in Structural Engineering is evident throughout.

Second: Remember that the overheads (ceilings) in all the bridge alcoves are made with that white plastic waffle grating (to mimic what was used on the TOS Enterprise),... they just didn't light it right until one of the TNG movies came along.

"Fake proportions"? Don't you have studio blueprints? I have a couple of simple versions that might help (if I can find them).

And, you're right, I rarely stick my nose in unless it's to complement a good effort or help clear up some misinformation... and that's usually only when someone gives me a heads'-up, since I'm so busy most of the time.

I believe that Andrew Probert’s original deck layout was too small to be really discernible, so here is a larger version to visualize how he envisioned the deck layout.

To put the “Observation Deck” into better perspective and scale, here is also his sketch to illustrate the basic idea. I think it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to realize that there is simply no place for a place like the Ten Forward lounge introduced in the second season of TNG.

Andrew Probert on the Ten Forward addition:

“With ALL of the window groupings I provided for such a space, on the saucer's forward underside, why did they decide to put it in the rim as they did?

At least work with the model (already established) and have header and footer windows with some sort of full-width graphic display running across the sensor-strip housing,… but, no.”

Obviously, both the people that made the proposal for Ten Forward and the people who sanctioned it did not (want to) understand the actual scale of the Enterprise-D and/or simply didn’t care.
It’s another sad and erroneous example of the infamous “nobody will measure it with a ruler” Hollywood prejudice Andrew had already been fighting against during TMP production (e.g. size of movie Enterprise’s recreation deck).

The problem with Ten Forward is not only its height, another problem are its three windows that cannot be rationalized with the acclaimed 6-footer VFX model of the Enterprise-D Andrew meticulously supervised – because the 6-footer only has two of these large windows at the bow!

Did they try to fix this mistake?

Yes, by commissioning another and less popular model (the one with the protruding surface panels) known as the 4-footer for the third season. They made the forward saucer hull thicker to somehow accommodate Ten Forward and changed the alignment of windows to have three at the bow’s center. As an unpleasant side effect the entire interior and vertical deck arrangement changed if you really want to rationalize the design alteration (I don’t dare to examine if the exterior windows still match those decks).

Here is an article with many graphic illustrations to reveal the problem.
I can only agree with the authors that “it’s a pity that the Art Department did not go with Probert’s well-thought out concept in the first place.”
(and that’s not the only item once you google for “Probert Ambassador Class”...)

For a general and occasional TNG viewer none of this is probably relevant, but given the amount of most commendable accuracy illustrated in this thread, Ten Forward could apparently be an issue that somehow needs to be resolved. YMMV

You want to have some real fun, try reconciling either set of deck plans with the six-foot model and the separation plane. It is a serious pain in the ass to try to even figure out what it should look like deck-by-deck, considering how little you can see of it and how it was built with a single-deck rim in mind. I've never figured out what Rick Sternbach was trying to convey with that part of Deck 9.

Try not to think too hard about how the rim and pylons of the stardrive section are still supposed to be one deck despite being the same thickness as the saucer rim, either.

To put the “Observation Deck” into better perspective and scale, here is also his sketch to illustrate the basic idea. I think it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to realize that there is simply no place for a place like the Ten Forward lounge introduced in the second season of TNG.
Andrew Probert on the Ten Forward addition:
“With ALL of the window groupings I provided for such a space, on the saucer's forward underside, why did they decide to put it in the rim as they did?

At least work with the model (already established) and have header and footer windows with some sort of full-width graphic display running across the sensor-strip housing,… but, no.”
Obviously, both the people that made the proposal for Ten Forward and the people who sanctioned it did not (want to) understand the actual scale of the Enterprise-D and/or simply didn’t care.
It’s another sad and erroneous example of the infamous “nobody will measure it with a ruler” Hollywood prejudice Andrew had already been fighting against during TMP production (e.g. size of movie Enterprise’s recreation deck).

The problem with Ten Forward is not only its height, another problem are its three windows that cannot be rationalized with the acclaimed 6-footer VFX model of the Enterprise-D Andrew meticulously supervised – because the 6-footer only has two of these large windows at the bow!

Did they try to fix this mistake?

Yes, by commissioning another and less popular model (the one with the protruding surface panels) known as the 4-footer for the third season. They made the forward saucer hull thicker to somehow accommodate Ten Forward and changed the alignment of windows to have three at the bow’s center. As an unpleasant side effect the entire interior and vertical deck arrangement changed if you really want to rationalize the design alteration (I don’t dare to examine if the exterior windows still match those decks).

Here is an article with many graphic illustrations to reveal the problem.
I can only agree with the authors that “it’s a pity that the Art Department did not go with Probert’s well-thought out concept in the first place.”
(and that’s not the only item once you google for “Probert Ambassador Class”...)

For a general and occasional TNG viewer none of this is probably relevant, but given the amount of most commendable accuracy illustrated in this thread, Ten Forward could apparently be an issue that somehow needs to be resolved. YMMV

Bob

Click to expand...

Thanks for the bigger images!
And a big topic. Although I concentrate my energy into the first four decks I thought about that matter as well and made some decision on it very early on in the project. I read the Ex Astris article on it, too.

But, as much fun it would be to intirely re-design Ten Foward (to align to the 6fter), it is the goal of this project to prioritize the interior sets we saw on the show. It means, first there is the Ten Foward Set from the show. And from this on, I have to solve the problems around it.
And since the Sternbach-blueprint-outline of the ship model is supposed to match the 4ft model and this model has the actual space for the Ten Foward stage, it will be the ship outline of the Sternbach bluebrints I will use. Meaning: the outline of the 4fter!

I know it sounds like heresy.

But I understand this to be the only way to make the project consistent and as close to what we saw on the show. And believe me, it was no easy decision.

And, you're right, I rarely stick my nose in unless it's to complement a good effort or help clear up some misinformation... and that's usually only when someone gives me a heads'-up, since I'm so busy most of the time.

Click to expand...

Yes, I thought so. I hope you stop by, when I have to design not seen places. I really would appreciate hints/thoughts on the original ideas for designing the ship!

"Fake proportions"? Don't you have studio blueprints? I have a couple of simple versions that might help (if I can find them).

Click to expand...

I do have several blueprints! - Though, I couldn't be sure that those scans are 100%. So, some time ago I had this phase when I was questioning the measurements and blueprints which caused me to try out a lot. I came to the conclusion that I could trust my stuff with some configurations.
I obviously did a mistake, by not changing back the placement of the bridge screen after my trial&error business and thats why I "faked proportions" for a while, since I created the objects, based on ultimate limitations of the volume of the structure (limitation, set by helper objects or actual objects) and every objects already existing contour.
I corrected it now for most objects and the next images shows a stage blueprint over the latest bridge build. Before the changes the bridge was shorter. Now, it corresponds with the blueprints again and the bridge is of correct lenght.

The greatest deviations from the blueprints derive from the little changes I made by using the tng screenshots and adjusting my (virtual) camera focal lenght etc as close to what I see in the shot. Several perspectives of one structre helped me to close in on the actual definition of the structure. So, I cant know if the blueprints are correct (the construction crew might have changed details for artistic or other reasons) on f.i. the walls, but I know that my observations are based on looking on the actual set by using the screenshots and watch episodes. And that's why I will go with my observations.

More images from the new interior. The difference is not easy to see. But there are still objects that need adjustments and you can use them for comparison.

Still things wrong with the ceiling. Still has to be finished.

And a sneek peek of a new area. These a VERY very first drafts of the corridor between the bridge and the observation lounge. Expect it to change.

Ahh, ...right. I forgot to mention that the corridor from the bridge does indeed lead somewhere. The latest of the Observation Lounge.

To my eye, it seems like there are too many steps for that difference in height.

Click to expand...

Considering that the Bridge features a ramp I can't help but wonder if there actually have to be steps in the unseen areas (instead of ramps). Is the level difference that dramatic to justify steps?

Bob

Click to expand...

Though the steps you see here are still wrong in its configuration, it's a necessarity. I tried it out with ramps. It doesn't work. The problem basically is the steepness of the ramp and the architectural necessarity of a plain in front of the Observation Lounge!
Perhaps you guys need some time to accept the stairs. But I thought about this for weeks and I'm already further in the process, when it comes to the stairs and that area.
Like Talos said: the steepness of the ramp would mean it is unplausible difficult to climb the ramp. I found that this is not just the case with the port side, but with the starboard too. There will be a ramp down to lower deck 1 on starboard. But stairs lead from the bridge to the Observation Lounge ( in those pictures it's actually half ramp/half stairs).

If this would be a real build, you'd kill me, if I'd place a ramp there.

It appears that at the angle the shot was taken the height difference between the Conference Lounge and the Bridge is visible. Is it really that much or am I missing something?

Bob

Click to expand...

The Lounge set originally doubled for sickbay in the first two seasons of TNG, you can see the covered up windows which become the alcoves for the medical beds. It was attached to the normal corridor set. When they took the back wall off that and built a new lounge, they still didn't connect them. Instead they both have little snub corridors leading off them.

As for the height difference, don't forget to factor in the higher bridge roof, which accounts for some of that difference.

It appears that at the angle the shot was taken the height difference between the Conference Lounge and the Bridge is visible. Is it really that much or am I missing something?

Click to expand...

It's not easy to see.
Look at the metal of the outer hull under ther lowest line of the conference lounges' windows in your exterior screenshot. This is my lead for where the windows have to be respective to the outer hull.
The lowest line of those windows, then again, give me the lead for the placement of the Conference Longe floor!

And this leads to the Conference Lounges' floor being way lower than the floor of the bridge.

I didn't see it, either. I had to place these things, set up my markers and measurements. I put figures next to it, that indicated the size of a crewmans, to see how difficult it would be to use this space. It's not much space. And the gap between the bridge floor and the CL floor is everything else then small. And the distance between the bridge door and the CL door isn't great, either. That prohibits a ramp.
There are other things that make the matter more complicated. Like the wall, that leads away from the Conference Loung on starboard and the wall I saw in one screenshot, that leads away from the bridge to the CL. You can see one of the walls in TNG: The Chase (6x20) right in the beginning. I don't have a lot of pictures, that depict that areas and it's not shown frequently... But it sort of defines that the stairs have to begin even further away from the bridge door leaving even less space for the stairs, but definitively not enough space for a ramp.

P.S.
I just learned that it's indeed more correct to call it Conferende Lounge.

This is great stuff. Have you actually modeled the exterior dome shapes to fit the set into? That would be fascinating to see.

I love finding out how the set had to have fit due to the constraints of the exterior model... this stuff is always fascinating. I hope you do model the exterior as well as so many times as the actors are looking out the windows at the bluescreen, or the black velvet with the sequins... I think... hmm, I bet some of the hull should be visible just there... That would be really cool to see!

Oh, believe me, I'm not arguing about having stairs or steps. I love stairs. I think people doing deck plans should include more of them and I make sure to put plenty when I work on mine. I just think that for the height - which I could be misjudging - there are too many steps and they're too shallow to walk down comfortably.